The Constitution of the United States was written to protect individuals' inalienable rights and clearly dilineate the role of the federal government in protecting those rights. Additionally, three branches were appropriated in order to guarantee a separation of powers in order to protect the union from tyranny and opression. Executive order should never be allowed in any situation where it's being applied to modify any aspect of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, or any of the other 27 Amendments. The Constitution already has an established process to amend its content, including a process to protect the people from unilateral action.Created: Jan 09, 2013

You have to create an account in order to vote on one of these.I figure there's a drone with my name on it anyway...

we petition the obama administration to:Eliminate armed guards for the President, Vice-President, and their families, and establish Gun Free Zones around them

Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.

Thank you. We need to be contacting our reps and letting them know in plain language that we will not tolerate any new infringements of the Second Amendment. In addition if you have not yet joined the NRA and GOA, I suggest doing so.

What I find more than a little humorous is, Smith and Wesson is a British company.

Come out from under that rock, Tompkins PLC sold S&W years ago, after S&W almost went broke because no one was buying their stuff.Per Wikipedia:

Quote

Between 1987 and 2001, Smith & Wesson was owned by the British engineering company Tomkins plc.

In March 2000 Smith & Wesson was the only major gun manufacturer to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration.[6] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards as well as limits on the sale and distribution of its products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns.[6][7][8] After a 40% sales slide,[9] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[10] The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation's being initiated under the Clinton administration,[8] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[11] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith & Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), which publicly renounced the agreement, was received positively by the firearms community.[12]